JUDGMENT : 1. Both the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 are minors represented by their guardians. They say that they are 'Table Tennis Players' having “excellent skill” in that game. They say that they were originally registered as players under the State Association of West Bengal and that they sought for transfer of their registration to the State Association in Kerala, which has led to certain controversies between them and the 2nd respondent/Kerala Table Tennis Association. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking that they be allowed to play tournaments in Kerala dehors what is stated in Ext.P6 which is a decision taken by the 2nd respondent placing certain restrictions upon players who are transferred from other States Associations to Kerala. 2. As regards W.P.(C)No.25108/2017 is concerned it is filed by table tennis players and the guardians of such players who are registered with the Kerala Table Tennis Association and they pray that the restriction imposed by the said Association, against players from outside Kerala as is discernible from Ext.P13 therein (which is shown as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017), be fully implemented. 3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas assisted by Sri.Rony Jose; Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25108/2017; the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, Sri.Benny P.Thomas; the learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri.Joy Thattil and Sri.Joseph Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for Kerala State Sports Council. 4. The bone of contention in these cases appear to be as to if the restriction placed by the Kerala Table Tennis Association (hereinafter referred to as 'The Association' for brevity) in Ext.P6 decision produced in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 (which is the same as Ext.P13 in W.P.(C)No.25108/2017) is valid or otherwise. As per the terms contained in this decision, players from outside Kerala will have to wait for a year before they can be allowed to participate in the tournaments in Kerala. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 challenge this restriction, whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25108/2017 want this to be implemented. 5. That being so, I do not deem it necessary to record the facts involved in these cases in any greater detail because pending these writ petitions certain intervening events have happened on account of which an affirmative adjudication relating to the decision of the Association contained in Ext.P6, produced along with W.P. (C)No.25168/2017 may not be now necessary. 6. 5. That being so, I do not deem it necessary to record the facts involved in these cases in any greater detail because pending these writ petitions certain intervening events have happened on account of which an affirmative adjudication relating to the decision of the Association contained in Ext.P6, produced along with W.P. (C)No.25168/2017 may not be now necessary. 6. Even though the Kerala State Association had been intently and intensely opposing the writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 on the ground that they are not registered with them, it now appears that pending writ petition, they have entered into some kind of a consensus under which the petitioners therein will be allowed to continue on the rolls of the State Association as their registered players. The details of this has not been placed before this Court but I am told by the learned counsel on either side that this was necessitated because these boys were earlier allowed to participate in a National event which was held in Indore during June, 2017 through the route of the State Association. Even though Sri.Benny P.Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the State Association, still maintains that there is a dispute as to whether the writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 have been validly registered on the rolls of the State Association, I do not deem this to be relevant now because they were allowed to participate in the National event under the sponsorship of the State Association. I say this because unless the petitioners were actually registered by the State Association, going by the Memorandum of Association of the 1st respondent Table Tennis Federation of India (hereinafter referred to as “The Federation” for convenience) it would not have been possible for the Kerala State Association to sponsor or to permit these boys to play in the National Ranking Tournament from Kerala. This is particularly more because even the Federation has taken a view that once the Association had sent the entry for participation of these boys in the National Event, it would not be proper on their part to thereafter maintain that they are not registered with the Association. This is particularly more because even the Federation has taken a view that once the Association had sent the entry for participation of these boys in the National Event, it would not be proper on their part to thereafter maintain that they are not registered with the Association. This view of the Federation is perspicuous from Ext.P9 e-mail sent by its Secretary General to the Secretary of the Kerala Association, wherein they have even cautioned the State Association that denying permission to the petitioners would have far reaching repercussions and that the Association should be careful before implementing or imposing decisions akin to that taken by it in Ext.P6, produced along with W.P.(C)No.25168/2017. 7. Hence even assuming that the dispute as to whether the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 are properly registered or otherwise is still alive, I do not think it necessary to adjudicate on this affirmatively since the intervening events namely that they were allowed to participate from Kerala in the National Ranking Tournament would go a long way in establishing and demonstrating that they were accepted to have been registered with the State Association, notwithstanding their contentions to the contrary in this writ petition. 8. I also notice that the parties are now virtually ad idem that the factum of registration of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 will now be allowed to obtain a quietus and that they will be allowed to continue to participate for Kerala so long as their registration is found proper. Sri.Benny P.Thomas, learned counsel for the Association says that even assuming that the boys were properly registered it is possible that such registration was obtained by them through incorrect methods. However, Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners refutes this with great ardour and asserts that the registration of the boys were as per Clause 37 of Ext.P1 Memorandum of Association of the Federation and that it was obtained after following every formality, as is required therein. He adds that there is no power obtained to the State Association to cancel the registration of these boys once registration was granted under the terms of Ext.P1. 9. He adds that there is no power obtained to the State Association to cancel the registration of these boys once registration was granted under the terms of Ext.P1. 9. Even though I have recorded the submissions of the learned counsel as above, I do not deem it appropriate or necessary to delve into or to consider the same in detail now especially because I notice that the State Association has virtually agreed to allow these writ petitioners to continue to play for Kerala, as their registered players, subject to liberty to initiate action against them by following due procedure, if it is found that they had obtained the registration through unfair means. 10. Sri.Swathi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25108/2017 supports the submissions made by Sri.Benny P.Thomas and asserts that to the information of his clients, the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 have not obtained registration under the State Association under the mandate and as per the procedure prescribed in Clause 37 of Ext.P1. He says that these boys, therefore, cannot be allowed to participate, even assuming that the decision of the State Association produced as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 and as Ext.P13 in W.P.(C)No.25108/2017, is not applied against them. He says that notwithstanding this, the entitlement of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 to represent Kerala cannot be conceded. 11. Since the singularly fundamental dispute in this case is as regards the registration of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25168/2017 and since those issues are no longer necessary for adjudication for the reasons that I have already stated above, I do not think it is relevant for this Court now to consider the validity of the decision of the State Association produced as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.25168/2017 and as Ext.P13 in W.P.(C)No.25108/2017. 12. 12. In such circumstances and for the reasons afore, I dispose of these two writ petitions without venturing into the merits regarding the validity or otherwise of the decision of the Kerala Table Tennis Association/2nd respondent herein in their decision dated 22.7.2017 and produced on record as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.25168/2017 and as Ext.P13 in W.P.(C)No.25108/2017, but recording that the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25168/2017 be deem to be registered on the rolls of the State Association, however, granting liberty to the Association to initiate action against them if it is found that they have obtained such registration contrary to the mandate and prescriptions of Clause 37 of Ext.P1 memorandum of Association, but only if they have the power to do so. If any such action is proposed, a proper notice shall be issued to the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25168/2017 and their guardians will be heard before finalising such proceedings, especially with respect to the question whether the Association has the competence or jurisdiction to initiate any such action. 13. Since I am not proposing to consider the validity of the decision relied on by the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.25108/2017 produced as Ext.P13 therein I leave it open to them to initiate fresh action, including before this Court, if it is so required in future, in an appropriate proceeding. I do not deem it necessary to consider it at this stage for the reasons that I have already recorded above. 14. Needless to say since the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25168/2017 are thus found to be registered on the rolls of the State Association, subject to my observations above regarding liberty of the Association, they will be entitled to participate in all future Tournaments from today as registered players under the Kerala Table Tennis Association. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.